When a patient is faced with a terminal illness or is told that they will never walk again, it may be difficult to find hope of any kind. Stem Cells provide a faint glimmer of hope, with all the amazing things they, in theory, are able to do and cure. What kind of stem cells are we talking about though? Embryonic, Adult, or Cord Blood? All these possess the ability to replicate themselves as well as become any type of cell (Harvard Gazette). As with any incredible feat there is more often than not a “catch.” Many questions arise when we think about the sacrifices, risks and benefits. It is a matter of where we owe our obligations, to the embryo or to the thousands of people who are suffering and dying with incurable diseases. A diverse range of arguments stretch from the scientific aspects to the religious laws. The controversy will continue as this analysis essay unfolds. Should we allow Scientists sacrifice a life for the extraordinary possibilities that are promised to come with the research of Embryonic Stem Cells?
The first argument as to what should be done about Embryonic Stem Cell research is written by Rachel Benson Gold. Gold is the author of several reports and articles in the field of reproductive health services and financing, and recently completed a comprehensive analysis of the national family planning effort and its role in an evolving health care system. In Rachel Benson Gold’s article “Embryonic Stem Cell Research- Old Controversy; New Debate” she targets the political side of the debate. Gold provides background information about stem cells and how the idea of its research began. “As far back as 1954, the Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded to scientists whose work on cultures of human fetal kidney ce...
... middle of paper ...
...Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett s, 2007. Print. Kinsley, Michael.
“The False Controversy of Stem Cells.” Time 23 May 2004: n. pag. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Gold, Rachel Benson. “Embryonic Stem Cell Research- Old Controversy; New Debate.” The Guttmacher Report 7.4 (2004): 4-7. Guttmacher. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Gewertz, Ken. “Stem Cell Research Debate Continues.” Harvard University Gazette 2007: n. pag. News.Harvard. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
Eisenberg,M.D., Daniel. “Is the Destruction of Preexisting Pre-Embryos Permitted for Stem Cell Research?” WWW.Aish.com. N.p., 10 Nov. 2001. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
In the debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), our country is being offered a true Faustian bargain. In return for a hoped-for potential - it is no more than that - of deriving desperately desired medical breakthroughs in the treatment of such afflictions as Parkinson's disease, paraplegia, and diabetes, we are being asked to give the nation's imprimatur to reducing human life into a mere natural resource to be exploited and commodified.
The Nobel laureates' inaccurate letter to President Bush urging him to feed federal funds to human-embryo stem-cell research has had PR value in the media. It perpetuates a number of misconceptions and misleading statements regarding stem-cell research, particularly embryonic as opposed to adult stem-cell research, and will serve to continue to cloud the issue. Some of these deceptive statements are the subject of this essay.
Late one night a woman is driving home on the freeway, she’s hit head on by a drunk driver and killed. The man is charged with two accounts of murder; the woman, and her four-week-old embryo inside her. By law, everyone human being is guaranteed rights of life; born or unborn they are equal. The same law should be enforced concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Dr. James A. Thomson discovered stem cells in 1998 and they’ve intrigued scientist ever since. The stem cells themselves are derived from a three to four day old cluster of cells called a blastocyst and they are so coveted because they are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body. Although embryonic stem cells show amazing potential to cure various disease such as cancer, congestive heart failure, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophies, and more. The methods by which they are obtained is controversial. Research on embryonic stem cells is unethical, unnecessary, and purely homicide.
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
Holm, Soren. The Ethical Case Against Stem Cell Research. Vol. 1. The Stem Cell Controversy. Ser. 15. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006. 1 vols.
Webb, S. (2009). Stem cell research is suffering due to the lack of federal funding. In A.
Reaves, J. (2001, July 11). The great debate over stem cell research. Time, Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,167245,00.html
While many support embryonic stem cell research, some people oppose it say that it is an unethical practice. According to these people, embryonic stem cells require murdering a baby, human life is defined by rational beings, those capable of rational thought or a consciousness. In order to be rational one must have a consciousness, the ability to have thoughts and feel pain, to begin with. “For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness” (Stem). If abortions are allowed within the United States, why shouldn’t embryonic stem cell research be? Another claim against embryonic stem cell research is that it devalues human lives. “Some argue that researching embryonic stem cells will lead us into cloning technology” (Embryonic). While embryonic cloning is a possibility, we already possess the capabilities to clone so cloning is an invalid argument. The final argument against embryonic stem cell research is that there are alternatives, like adult stem cells. While adult stem cells may be utilized, they won’t be as effective. Embryonic stem cells are not only efficient but also renewable. They can be grown in a culture where as adult stem cells are extremely rare, if there are any. They can only be found in mature tissue. Isolating these extremely rare cells is challenging and has a high failure rate if not harvested correctly. “One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become” (Stem). Using adult stem cells we might never understand our development from conception ...
As technology stem cell research intensifies, so does the controversy about whether such scientific progress is moral. In the past millennium to today the present stem cell research has become a controversial topic across the world. Stem cells are unspecialized cells that have unique regenerative abilities, allowing them to divide into specialized cell types. Understanding why these processes occur is essential to curing disease. Critics of stem cell research argue that the extraction of embryonic stem cells involves destroying an early embryo, equating the act of killing a human. Although stem cell research is a highly controversial topic, it is compulsory to continue stem cell research within ethical boundaries for the benefit of mankind.
Monroe, Kristen, et al., eds. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical and Political Issues. Los Angeles/Berkley: University of California Press, 2008. Print
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...
“Federal Funds Should Not Be Used for Research That Destroys Embryos.” Stem Cells. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
Lanza, Tyler. "The Stem Cell Research Controversy." Stem Cell History. N.p., January 5, 2011. Web. 16 Feb 2012.
The stem cell research controversy is one of the major headlines in bioscience and has been discussed and debated numerous times throughout the last decade or so. It became a major issue in 1997/1998 and continued into the 2000’s where George W. Bush joined the problem by vetoing the first bid that was brought forward by Congress to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. Bush stated after the veto that, “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others” and also stated “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect”. Bush was also supported by children that he said, “began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization (in vitro means the technique of performing an experiment in a controlled environment outside of a living organism) but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete.